This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Originally Posted by marduc

They do in some states, I took advantage of this in Florida when I quit, with that program they sent you at no cost a full 12 week supply of your choice of patches, lozenges, or gum (for a baseline 2 weeks of patches retails at ~$35), plus gave phone counseling sessions as well.

-------------------------------------------------

As far as the taxation of drugs, I am all for taxation of them so long as top priorities for these funds are to pay for the cost of treatment when needed, and to prevent new users from starting in the first place (delaying age of 1st use is CRITICAL here).

What I consider the ideal scenario is a two pronged distribution method for hard drugs.

That sounds more reasonable than the war on drugs/people.

1) pay to play - if you want to use recreationally, so be it, your body, your prerogative., you pay and are taxed for this - with the funds from this supporting rehab programs open to all, and also to support the other prong,

2) Free maintenance - This is for the bottom of the barrel down and out cases, if an addiction goes to the point where you would be stealing, or selling your body, or whatever.. there will be maintenance dose available for free.. you must go to a clinical setting and have the drug administered there.. in this setting the user would slowly build trust with trained specialists (ideally one assigned their "case") who can at least look out for their well being, and try to persuade the user to get the treatment they need to kick their habit.

unfortunately case 2 segregates for the poorest of the poor, and does not address the addict who is able to finance his habit, for them the best we could do is to offer treatment minus the negative stigma and the cost, and hope they seek it out.

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

I hadn't taken the time to understand the reasons a libertarian and a progressive would use for legalization or that they were different. What are the reasons, respectively?

Originally Posted by samsmart

Well, libertarians and progressives won't argue that people should be free to use some recreational drugs, especially marijuana. After all, both groups tend to be socially liberal.

Where you will get the disconnect is in the economics of legalizing drugs. Libertarians will want a laissez-faire system without regulation, while progressives will want regulations and taxing of recreational drugs. That is when the arguments will commence.

Sam's explanation is somewhat correct, but I will expand. Libertarians see drug legalization as a personal responsibility/personal liberty issue. The do not want to see government involvement in something that is a personal choice. Progressives see legalization as a potential to help the greater good, efficiently, to tax these drugs and use the monies towards drug treatment. Same result, different reasons. From what I see, libertarians and progressives are often at odds on issues, however, this is often because of their methodology and reasons, not the outcome.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Sam's explanation is somewhat correct, but I will expand. Libertarians see drug legalization as a personal responsibility/personal liberty issue. The do not want to see government involvement in something that is a personal choice. Progressives see legalization as a potential to help the greater good, efficiently, to tax these drugs and use the monies towards drug treatment. Same result, different reasons. From what I see, libertarians and progressives are often at odds on issues, however, this is often because of their methodology and reasons, not the outcome.

I see both elements in my opinion about legalizing marijuana. There is definitely the personal liberty angle, where I believe it is up to the person what they ingest. I also see the benefits to tax it to raise revenues. These revenues may be used to fund drug treatment or they may not and instead go into general revenues for the state.

I don't know if that makes me a progressive libertarian or what. I think it just means I am a practical Whig, without reference to some ideology.

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

I see both elements in my opinion about legalizing marijuana. There is definitely the personal liberty angle, where I believe it is up to the person what they ingest. I also see the benefits to tax it to raise revenues. These revenues may be used to fund drug treatment or they may not and instead go into general revenues for the state.

I don't know if that makes me a progressive libertarian or what. I think it just means I am a practical Whig, without reference to some ideology.

A true progressive libertarian would be quite rare; in a way this is almost a contradiction. However, though they may not admit it, folks with both of these ideologies do share some similarities. Mostly it's in outcome.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

A true progressive libertarian would be quite rare; in a way this is almost a contradiction. However, though they may not admit it, folks with both of these ideologies do share some similarities. Mostly it's in outcome.

And since I am outcome focussed rather than ideology based, that would make since.

I think I see why that combination would be a contradiction, sinc eprogressives subsume the individual for the greater good, while libertarians preserve individual rights.

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

I think the Drug War only continues because it benefits the government and prison developers.

The government generates revenue through asset forfeiture:

"...civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inani-mate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions are in rem proceedings, which means literally “against a thing”—the property itself is charged with a crime." (1)

"We did not seek to determine whether forfeiture activities ultimately reduce crime or affect drug-related arrest patterns. However, we found some evidence that police agencies engage in forfeiture practices that maximize their potential for revenue generation. Specifically, we found that significantly fewer equitable-sharing payments are collected in generous forfeiture states, which is consistent with the policing-for-profit allegation put forth by forfeiture's critics (e.g., Blumenson and Nilsen, 1998)." (2)

Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

I think the Drug War only continues because it benefits the government and prison developers.

The government generates revenue through asset forfeiture:

"...civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inani-mate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions are in rem proceedings, which means literally “against a thing”—the property itself is charged with a crime." (1)

"We did not seek to determine whether forfeiture activities ultimately reduce crime or affect drug-related arrest patterns. However, we found some evidence that police agencies engage in forfeiture practices that maximize their potential for revenue generation. Specifically, we found that significantly fewer equitable-sharing payments are collected in generous forfeiture states, which is consistent with the policing-for-profit allegation put forth by forfeiture's critics (e.g., Blumenson and Nilsen, 1998)." (2)